Carrie Underwood’s Style Evolution Carrie Underwood has come a long way since her days as the jeans-wearing ingenue on American Idol. Since breaking onto the…
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Why are we giving jihadis a licence to kill by letting them out of prison early?
Usman Khan killed two people in London Bridge attack after being freed early from prison
Within five minutes of Usman Khan being shot dead on London Bridge, the authorities will have known exactly who he was.
There were no prizes for guessing instantly that he would have been on the radar of the police and security services. It was a classic Islamist terror attack, a virtual rerun of the earlier atrocity at nearby Borough Market.
Yet three hours later, Neil Basu, head of the anti-terrorist squad, stood outside Scotland Yard and insisted that he couldn’t possibly speculate about the motives behind it.
By then I’m sure he would have been perfectly well aware that not only was Khan known to the police, he had also been released from prison after serving less than half of a 16-year sentence for serious terrorism offences.
For some reason, Basu chose to keep that to himself. Did he think we wouldn’t find out the truth? Or was he merely obediently following the official line of refusing to use the expression ‘Islamist’ in connection with terror attacks?
Who knows? But it’s worth noting that Basu is the same police officer who warned a few weeks ago that the fastest growing threat to our safety came from ‘Far-Right’ white supremacists.
The police are always anxious to draw some kind of imaginary moral equivalence between the bloodthirsty disciples of a global death cult and a bunch of losers celebrating Hitler’s birthday in a flat above a chip shop in Romford.
So it’s fair to assume that if Friday’s attack had been carried out by a white skinhead with a swastika tattoo on his forehead, Basu would have been eager to share that information. After all, neo-Nazis have been responsible for attacks from North London to New Zealand.
The authorities are, however, reluctant to use any permutation of the word ‘Islam’ in relation to terrorism.
Their concern about demonising an entire religion is commendable. But it also helps explain why they consistently fail to understand or properly tackle the cancer of jihadism.
You can’t treat fanatical, religiously motivated terrorists as common-or-garden criminals. As the jihadis themselves see it, they’re on a mission from God. They’re not ‘vulnerable’ backstreet boys from broken homes who have lost their way and nicked a few cars. They are determined zealots ready to die for their cause, taking as many ‘kaffirs’ and ‘infidels’ with them as they can.
Hours after the attack, anti-terrorist squad chief Neil Basu stood outside Scotland Yard and insisted that he couldn’t possibly speculate about the motives behind the attack
In the normal course of events, all attempts to rehabilitate offenders are to be welcomed. But these aren’t normal villains who can be persuaded back to a righteous path. They consider themselves soldiers in a holy war.
Efforts to re-integrate them into polite society are almost inevitably doomed to failure.
In the case of Khan, he simply told the authorities what they wanted to hear in order to wangle early release and resume his murderous mission.
The outrage is compounded by the fact that his two innocent victims were compassionate young people trying to help him.
Staff at Khan’s rehabilitation centre even went on a sponsored run to buy him a laptop computer. That would be one for the You Couldn’t Make It Up files were it not so tragic.
It would be reassuring to think that this latest atrocity on the streets of London would give the powers-that-be pause for thought. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.The unseemly political squabble over who is to blame only serves to illustrate the scale of the problem and the refusal of anyone in authority to accept responsibility.
Yes, Labour formalised the policy of freeing criminals automatically halfway through their sentence. But Khan was released under the Tories, after a ruling by Lord Justice Leveson and two other Appeal Court judges.
He left prison in December 2018 despite being given a 16-year sentence in 2012 for plotting to murder Boris Johnson, then London Mayor, and blow up the Stock Exchange. Once his jail term was confirmed, he became eligible for parole halfway through.
By my admittedly ropey maths, the difference between 2012 and 2018 is just six years. Presumably, he was given credit for time spent on remand awaiting trial.
Even so, 16 years, let alone six, can’t be considered adequate punishment for conspiring to murder a leading politician and attack a landmark building, with the potential for goodness-knows-how-many casualties.
Why weren’t Khan and his fellow conspirators given whole life sentences?
In 2017, a sentencing review recommended tougher penalties for a range of terrorism offences. At the upper end, those convicted of committing a terrorist act could face life, with a minimum of 40 years.
But between 2006 and 2016, the average term handed down was just eight years and five months.
In the U.S, they’d have been banged up for 999 years in the same supermax penitentiary as the Ayatollah of Finsbury Park, Captain Hook.
And speaking of Finsbury Park mosque, it comes as no surprise to learn that Usman Khan was mentored by Hooky’s fellow hate-preacher Ram Jam Choudary. He’s another Islamist headbanger who has benefited from leniency, walking free last year halfway through a 66-month sentence for recruiting Islamic State fighters.
Usman Khan was mentored by hate-preacher Anjem Choudary
Ram Jam was released despite warnings at the highest level that he was ‘genuinely dangerous’.
As one of the anti-terrorist detectives involved in investigating the 2005 London transport bombings said: ‘Every plot I ever researched, someone in it was linked to Choudary.’
Until he was eventually arrested, Ram Jam lived a charmed life — on benefits. For years there was a reluctance to nick any Islamist rabble-rouser on the insulting pretence that it might upset the ‘community’.
How disgraceful for the authorities to assume that Muslims are any less concerned about terrorism than the rest of us. The idea that these maniacs are in any way representative of the wider Muslim community was always nonsense. When Choudary was given a risible five-and-a-half year sentence — and it became clear that he would be out in half that time — moderate Muslim leaders were outraged.
Still, Choudary is now free again to walk the streets and, presumably, is as active as ever despite supposedly being monitored.
We also learn that 74 convicted terrorists are at liberty in Britain after securing early release. Who thought that was a good idea?
Why can’t we be told who they are, and where they are? Do we have to wait until one or more of them does a Khan and takes more innocent lives?
The blame game has been played out even before the bodies are buried. Politicians are once again going through the motions, mouthing the usual platitudes — London can take it, blah, blah, blah.
Boris is talking about tougher powers, but the courts won’t use the sentencing powers they already have.
If, heaven forfend, Labour does somehow manage to form a government, our next Prime Minister will be a terrorists’ stooge who has never met an enemy of Britain he didn’t like.
Corbyn has just put out an old video in which he warned that Britain’s foreign wars — ordered by Labour’s Tony Blair — would create a new generation of home-grown jihadis.
He’s treading a gossamer thin line between self-justification and condoning the London Bridge attacks. So we know where his sympathies lie and can’t expect any meaningful anti-terror clampdown from an incoming Labour administration.
Or, sad to say, from the Tories either, despite Boris’s promise of longer jail terms. The Conservatives have had nine years to fix things, but have conspicuously failed.
The truth is that the British justice system is founded upon a lie, a deliberate deception, a pretence that criminals — not just terrorists — will serve the full sentence handed down by the courts.
The politicians may pretend they are in charge, but the entire system fell to the Guardianistas decades ago. Those who run the prisons and the probation service will always act in the best interests of their ‘clients’ — not the wider public the state is supposed to protect.
Terrorists such as Khan will continue to receive the benefit of the doubt. As I wrote when Ram Jam was freed early, while liberal judges continue to extend leniency, it wouldn’t matter if the maximum sentence was hanging, drawing and quartering — they still wouldn’t use it.
For now, we’re going through the ritual vigils and knee-jerk condemnation. But it’ll all go quiet again after a few days.
Until the next time, when some other Islamist nutjob takes a few more innocent lives and the police again claim they have no idea what motivated him.
Letting jihadis out on licence gives them a licence to kill.
Source: Read Full Article